Yesterday, I saw (on a big screen) the trailer for the new 4k restoration of Manhattan. It screens here in NY starting Friday and plays for 2 weeks. The trailer looks as good as you'd expect.

I read this from a fan site. Not sure if it's an official site.

The Woody Allen Pages wrote:There is apparently more Allen 4K to come from Park Circus and MGM, who have the rights to Allen’s catalogue from 1971’s Bananas to 1991’s Shadows And Fog. Not all of them are likely to be earmarked for the upgrade, but it probably depends on the success of these first prints.

Knowing how persnickety Allen is about home viewing of his films, who knows if these 4k's will ever get released on bluray.

Anyone have any idea why Wonder Wheel won't be at Cannes? It's apparently still shooting for that same August timeframe so it seems like a mistake to forgo the festival (assuming it was Allen/Amazon's choice and not Cannes finally shying from the controversy year in and out)

I disagree with this article so much and also don't like how it's just dismissive without explanation, aside from going through the truly breezy process Allen uses to make these movies. If I had more time, I'd go into more detail. But I'll try to offer a few thoughts. Scoop has weirdly become one of my favorite Allen movies. It has many great one-liners and serves as an almost parody to Match Point (making the two a kind of Melinda and Melinda). I personally think Midnight in Paris will be one of his films that lasts a long time. It uses elements from Cairo, but with a few different twists, excellent cinemotagraphy, and a very likeable cast, especially Owen Wilson. I know many people had positive feelings about Magic in the Moonlight, playing again with some of his religious questions; again, beautifully shot and a great performance from Emma Stone. Finally, and I'm probably alone in this, but I genuinely love To Rome with Love and its throwback to his '70s style humor. The comparison to Scorsese and Spielberg is interesting. I'd rewatch some of these recent Allen films over any of Scorsese's recent movies and The BFG any day...

I like that Parker Posey showed up on set not knowing if Irrational Man was a comedy or not. I still don't know.

John Shade wrote:I disagree with this article so much and also don't like how it's just dismissive without explanation, aside from going through the truly breezy process Allen uses to make these movies. If I had more time, I'd go into more detail. But I'll try to offer a few thoughts. Scoop has weirdly become one of my favorite Allen movies. It has many great one-liners and serves as an almost parody to Match Point (making the two a kind of Melinda and Melinda). I personally think Midnight in Paris will be one of his films that lasts a long time. It uses elements from Cairo, but with a few different twists, excellent cinemotagraphy, and a very likeable cast, especially Owen Wilson. I know many people had positive feelings about Magic in the Moonlight, playing again with some of his religious questions; again, beautifully shot and a great performance from Emma Stone. Finally, and I'm probably alone in this, but I genuinely love To Rome with Love and its throwback to his '70s style humor. The comparison to Scorsese and Spielberg is interesting. I'd rewatch some of these recent Allen films over any of Scorsese's recent movies and The BFG any day...

I like that Parker Posey showed up on set not knowing if Irrational Man was a comedy or not. I still don't know.

Midnight in Paris and Blue Jasmine are the only examples of decent Allen films since Bullets Over Broadway. I wholeheartedly agree with that article, and I love almost every film Allen made between Love and Death and BOB. He has gotten lazy. So sure occasionally he makes a decent movie like Cafe Society, but the rest of the time he makes lazily made films like To Rome With Love and Irrational Man. I love Crimes and Misdemeanor to death, and Match Point is OK, but how many films based on Crime and Punishment can you make? He said enough with Crimes and Misdemeanor he never had to make a film about murder again. And Scorsese is still making interesting films, but I can't and won't argue in favor of the BFG

I have a great urge to say something in response to your Scorsese comment, but frankly everything I come up with is just as absurd as your statements on Allen. So instead I'll just leave matters at if you can defend Scorsese's slump than certainly it isn't a negative for others to defend Allen's (wrongfully) perceived slump.

One direct comment though is that if HONG, OZU, and many other filmmakers can repeat certain tales ad infinitum than certainly Allen could too as long as he can make it work (and frankly he's only done that story three or four times which is only about a tenth of his filmography).

dda1996a wrote:Midnight in Paris and Blue Jasmine are the only examples of decent Allen films since Bullets Over Broadway. I wholeheartedly agree with that article, and I love almost every film Allen made between Love and Death and BOB. He has gotten lazy. So sure occasionally he makes a decent movie like Cafe Society, but the rest of the time he makes lazily made films like To Rome With Love and Irrational Man. I love Crimes and Misdemeanor to death, and Match Point is OK, but how many films based on Crime and Punishment can you make? He said enough with Crimes and Misdemeanor he never had to make a film about murder again. And Scorsese is still making interesting films, but I can't and won't argue in favor of the BFG

I don't share this opinion, but he was criticized by some for recycling too many of the same ideas (or according to his harshest critics, the same ideas lifted from Bergman and Fellini) even before the '90s. Match Point is commendable (it's possibly the only later Allen film I'd wish to re-visit) and his films consistently have admirable performances by at least a few actors, but once his terrific run with Mia Farrow ended with Husbands and Wives, his work became a lot less interesting, at least to me. In every regard from the humor in the comedies to the richness in ideas, there was a marked decline from that point on.

John Shade wrote:I disagree with this article so much and also don't like how it's just dismissive without explanation, aside from going through the truly breezy process Allen uses to make these movies. If I had more time, I'd go into more detail. But I'll try to offer a few thoughts. Scoop has weirdly become one of my favorite Allen movies. It has many great one-liners and serves as an almost parody to Match Point (making the two a kind of Melinda and Melinda). I personally think Midnight in Paris will be one of his films that lasts a long time. It uses elements from Cairo, but with a few different twists, excellent cinemotagraphy, and a very likeable cast, especially Owen Wilson. I know many people had positive feelings about Magic in the Moonlight, playing again with some of his religious questions; again, beautifully shot and a great performance from Emma Stone. Finally, and I'm probably alone in this, but I genuinely love To Rome with Love and its throwback to his '70s style humor. The comparison to Scorsese and Spielberg is interesting. I'd rewatch some of these recent Allen films over any of Scorsese's recent movies and The BFG any day...

I like that Parker Posey showed up on set not knowing if Irrational Man was a comedy or not. I still don't know.

I adore Scoop as well. One of his most droll and charming films. "I heard you drowning. I finished my scone and came as fast as I could."

Anything Else is a real hidden gem in his oeuvre. I love how his character in that crosses over from harmless neurotic to full-blown psychopath.

knives wrote:I have a great urge to say something in response to your Scorsese comment, but frankly everything I come up with is just as absurd as your statements on Allen. So instead I'll just leave matters at if you can defend Scorsese's slump than certainly it isn't a negative for others to defend Allen's (wrongfully) perceived slump.

One direct comment though is that if HONG, OZU, and many other filmmakers can repeat certain tales ad infinitum than certainly Allen could too as long as he can make it work (and frankly he's only done that story three or four times which is only about a tenth of his filmography).

How are they absurd? Please do Shar your thoughts. I love Allen, but even as a big fan of his I find everything since BOB to be less interesting than his earlier films. And I don't mind a director continuing to work on a given subject or a theme. But he already said all there is to say on that theme in his first film, and Match Point was a decent enough thriller that used that same theme again. Then we got two more empty films doing the exact same thing all over. Even Cafe Society which I rather enjoyed was like so many other Allen films. My problem is that he doesn't find anything new to say on themes he already said so plenty and masterfully about. Themes of infidelity, the back stages of show business, older men dating younger women. It just got to the point where you start to just remember his older films while watching a newer one. And yes I will defend Scorsese. With the exception of Shutter Island I enjoyed all his recent films.

I'm biased because I could say I enjoyed about 90% of his filmography, and I can understand when somebody criticizes Scoop, To Rome with love or Hollywood Ending (all films I liked), but then to dismiss Sweet and Lowdown, Blue Jasmine or Match Point, that I do not understand.

Am I the only one who is a fan of the recent work of all three (Allen, Scorsese, and Spielberg--though admittedly, I have not seen BFG but I though Bridge of Spies was strong)? Scorsese in particular has seemed to be in a career high with films like Hugo, Wolf of Wall Street and Silence. Am I that bankrupt of good taste?

Last edited by HitchcockLang on Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I never dismissed them. I like all three films, I just don't think they rank among his best work. They are all good films, I would say everything from Love and Death until Small Time Crooks minus about 4/5 films which rank from average to disappointing, are absolutely wonderful.
I like some of Spielberg, not everything. I liked Bridge of Spies and Lincoln, War Horse and BFG much less

Magic in the Moonlight is one of Allen's three or four best films. I'm pretty sure I've discussed every Allen film in recent memory in depth in their respective threads. There is nothing more tedious than someone declaring Allen hasn't made a good film since X and then offering scant evidence they've even tried to engage with the films

Magic in the Moonlight is one I cannot get into (although it's definitely one of Allen's three or four most gorgeous movies), but I hold Blue Jasmine in that kind of esteem and either like or love all of the other movies he's made since 2010.

Why wouldn't I "engage" with them? I love Allen, and every new film of his I will watch. I always hope the new film he makes will be good. As I said I liked Small Time Crooks, Match Point, Midnight in Paris, Blue Jasmine and Cafe Society. And some are not awful. I just feel lately he really doesn't spend too much time on his scripts to find new places to go.
I enjoyed Irrational Man for the first half hour, when it was just Stone and Phoenix talking and swooning. Then once the "plot" started I lost interest. I really didn't care for Magic in the Moonlight as I found it aimlessly heading towards its ending. I hate when someone just assumes I don't try to connect with these films because I hold a different opinion. I would easily put Cairo among my favorite movies of all time, with Hannah, Annie Hall and Crimes and Misdemeanor not far behind. I'm also a big fan of more unknown films, like the terrific Stardust Memories, Interiors and the undervalued and brilliant Another Woman. The older and more book, philosophy and art savvy I became I also started to enjoy his films a lot more when his countless references and jokes made sense. Even though I'm not their biggest fan I think Allen had so much wit and invention and playfulness in his early comedies. And Annie Hall in my opinion is one of the most brilliantly directed scenes. Sure he is no Godard breaking the rules, but the mastery he showed in Annie Hall is just dazzling. He tore up the romance genre while also making one of its most romantic films in the process.
So trust me, I always try to engage with Allen, and I usually find some parts to like even in his lesser films.

The basic fact is that Allen is still about the only one of his age or stature who has consistently had a film a year forever. In the time since 2004, Allen's made 13 films and, of those, there's probably five that depending on the person would not come across as particularly weird to see in anyone's favorite Allens of all time (those being Match Point, Vicki Cristina Barcelona, Midnight in Paris, Blue Jasmine, and Cafe Society). In comparison, in that same period Scorsese's made six films total and all of them have their fans. Spielberg's made 9 since then and has in that time made maybe four or five that have actually held on as great movies in any real way. Allen's still producing tons of work that's just as good as in his prime, as do Scorsese and Spielberg. It's just that he does it so speedily he's able to also make a bunch of nonsense on the side.

knives wrote:Yeah, I would put his last decade of work over any other post Farrow decade and honestly over all of his pre-Love and Death work.

I'm with you on this. From Love and Death to Hannah, then from Match Point on.

I will say I was too flippant with my Scorsese comment. I have not seen his most recent film, so shame on me for a similarly lazy remark. I tend to like Spielberg's output from 2000- more than anything he's done in his whole career, but I just thought the BFG and it's CGI mess was a sign the run was definitively over.

Back to Allen, it seems over on the To Rome with Love thread that there are indeed other fans of that film. The casual ridicule it receives was making me wonder if there was something wrong with me for finding it funny. It has the closest kind of gags to his earlier, funny movies than anything else. The bathtub opera joke worked for me. Rome, Paris, and London's Scoop all work for me because the jokes are funny; Allen's breezy approach works with the casual tone of the movies. They still explore some of his tropes and ideas. In these movies Allen seems to take advantage of the wide-eyed tourist look, rather than attempting to re-create the setting as he did in Match Point. An aside, maybe I mentioned it, but Cassandra's Dream is often praised by a small group of fans. I haven't seen either since they came out, maybe time to revisit. Ribs' point is basically correct: with Allen's fans you could probably find some to praise these movies, even Whatever Works, which I have almost nothing positive to say about.

Man that Atlantic piece had an ax to grind, but I don't see how you can disagree with this "Allen’s moviemaking technique as something more akin to an assembly line."

domino harvey wrote:Magic in the Moonlight is one of Allen's three or four best films. I'm pretty sure I've discussed every Allen film in recent memory in depth in their respective threads. There is nothing more tedious than someone declaring Allen hasn't made a good film since X and then offering scant evidence they've even tried to engage with the films

How massive a crush on Emma Stone do you have? Then again I'm someone who thought Vicky Christina Barcelona was pretty awesome.

To me his best work as a filmmaker is from Radio Days to Bullets, but the whimsy albeit at times clunky earlier films were his most fun.